Letters

Brown's breakfast show rating

Geoffrey Wheatcroft's argument that an incumbent government should be thrown out merely because it has been in power for "too long" is preposterous (Three terms is quite enough. Democracy demands change, April 15). Government should be judged on its competence in managing a country, not its age. To count years instead of votes goes against the democratic spirit - if the majority of voters want to keep the same government in office for multiple terms then so be it. The long-term government has obviously proved its worth, whereas the opposition parties have not shown they are capable of doing a better job. Moreover, with a long spell in office, a government can set about implementing its manifesto promises adequately, whereas, if there is a high turnover of the executive, these policies would have little chance to deliver real results if a new government were to decide to reverse or dramatically change their original intent. To sacrifice political stability as Wheatcroft argues would be completely irrational, and would only serve to damage a country's ability to pursue long-term, coherent goals.Matthew BrandwoodHampton Wick, Surrey

Your leader (April 12) describes how "Dazzled by the possibility of defeat, Labour is sliding into the sort of self-obsessed funk that cost the Conservatives power a decade ago." Yet unlike the Conservatives, there does not seem to be an ideological divide fuelling any internal conflict. Unfortunately, however, Gordon Brown cannot pick issues "that form clear dividing lines with the Conservatives, and pursue them hard" since the entire premise of New Labour was to triangulate to the right and stay there. Now that the economy is turning sour, New Labour is stuck with its own legacy and bereft of fresh ideas about what to do next, other than more of the same. No wonder the MPs are jumpy.D CameronStoke-on-Trent

Your report of Gordon Brown's interview on Good Morning, America (Brown competes with the Pope - and the shadow of Blair, April 17) omits to mention his decision to follow where Blair led in lining up with the European centre-right. Insisting that the US and EU would work more closely in the years ahead, our prime minister said: "It's partly because divisions within Europe over Iraq will come to an end because we've got Chancellor Merkel, we've got President Sarkozy, we've got Prime Minister Berlusconi."David PurdyStirling

Yes, of course Tony Blair was feted in the US. And we all know why. As a Labour party member I am much happier with a leader with some clear principles who isn't prepared to play games to charm the media. I admire and applaud his (long-held and firmly expressed) stance on Mugabe, far more important to those of us with serious political, humanitarian concerns than how he performs on a breakfast show. The whole reporting of his visit to the US has been disingenuous and denigratory, particularly the constant sniping by Nick Robinson of the BBC. Gordon Brown deserves more respect. Even Tony Blair could not have competed with the Pope - and you all know it.Eva TutchellTeddington, Middlesex

I have lately been reflecting on John Birt, who arrived at the BBC with a formidable reputation for efficiency and creative thinking, refreshingly allied to a reputation for progressive values and for representing the fine instincts of the traditional left. How quickly we were disabused. As director general, he proved to be obsessed with systems and structures, simultaneously oblivious to the misery thus inflicted on those he led. The aftermath of his regime shows that his new dispensations did not leave the BBC any more safe from undermining by the market and ill-disposed politicians but rather more vulnerable to implosion from the collapse of staff morale and any sense of corporate loyalty.

And why have I been thinking of John Birt? Because I am so irresistibly put in mind of him by the present occupant of No 10 Downing Street.W Stephen GilbertCorsham, Wiltshire